Deficiency Index

Mount Carmel Bluffs

Dubuque, Iowa · CCN 165792

4 surveys since 2021, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
12
Surveys
4
Harm or worse
0
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2021–2026
’21’25’26
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worseNone

No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file1/4

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
60
Ownership
For profit - Limited Liability company
Chain
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES
County
Dubuque
Medicare-certified since
2021

CMS ratings

Overall
5
Health inspection
4
Staffing
5
Quality measures
2

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=12, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Feb 26, 2026

256 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day4.323.63
Registered-nurse hours per resident day1.18—
Annual nurse turnover29.0%44.5%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD571.4%E228.6%F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 7 of the 12 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Mount Carmel Bluffs, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF689Jul 9, 2025

    Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to assure all residents remained in a safe and secure environment with all hazardous items locked and/or contained in a safe area not accessible to residents (Residents #7, #8 and #9). The facility identified a census of 56 residents. Findings include: On 6/25/25 at 2:24 PM observed an unattended 4 wheeled utility cart that had 2 open shelves positioned outside of occupied room [ROOM NUMBER]. The cart contained deodorant spray and disinfectant wipes. Both bottles directed to keep out of reach of children. In addition, noted 3 pairs of pointed edged scissors accessible on the cart. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF812Apr 4, 2024

    Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to use gloves appropriately for assembling and serving meals, keep hands off the eating surfaces of dishes, wear hair nets appropriately, keep the ice machines clean, and date opened foods in order to serve meals under sanitary conditions. The facility reported a census of 46 residents. Findings include: Observation of the first floor kitchenette on 4/01/23 at 9:40 AM revealed the following: a. One small, round, white, four inch cardboard container, with an unknown food substance, undated in the refrigerator. b. One six inch plastic container with one piece of Lasagna Classico, labeled with a resident's name, undated. c. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF725Feb 26, 2026

    Based on clinical record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, call light logs, and policy review the facility failed to respond to resident needs in a timely manner for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #7). Residents waited more than 15 minutes for call lights to be answered and Resident #7 stated she was not able to hold her urine while waiting. The facility reported a census of 55 residents.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #7 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 indicating intact cognition. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF550Jul 9, 2025

    Based on observation, clinical record review, resident interview, staff interview and review of the facilities Resident's Rights form revealed the staff failed to treat 2 out of 3 residents with dignity and respect during care as a means to maintain their individual resident rights. (Residents #4 and #5)Findings include:1. Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment form dated 4.8.25 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS listed Resident #4 as non-ambulatory, required substantial to maximum assistance with toileting hygiene, and partial to moderate assistance with toilet transfers. The MDS included diagnoses of renal insufficiency (impaired kidney function), diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic respiratory failure. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF684Jul 9, 2025

    Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete an adequate assessment and intervention for 3 of 3 residents following a change in condition (Residents #3, #6 and #7). The facility identified a census of 56 residents. Findings include:Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated Resident #3 depended on the staff to rolling left and right in bed, she didn't attempt to walk due to safety concerns or medical conditions and didn't use a wheelchair.An observation on 6/25/25 at approximately 3:05 PM revealed Resident #3 had a bandage on her left lower forearm. […]

Read 7 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 7 of 12 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Feb 26, 2026Standard1 finding
  • Jul 9, 2025Complaint3 findings
  • Apr 4, 2024Standard3 findings
  • Jul 22, 2021Standard5 findings

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction